Sermon Tone Analysis

Despite its obscurities, Paul’s teaching in this passage clearly affirms three things: a balance between (1) respect for a creation mandate to maintain and even celebrate the gender distinctions with which we have been created; (2) a respect for culturally specific approaches to guarding moral and sexual purity; and (3) a commitment to fully integrating women and their gifts into the experience of the worshiping community

Paul’s ultimate concern seems to be related to the manifestation of glory and shame in worship, particularly that all be done to the glory of God (cf.

10:31), and not to glorify or shame anyone else.

Humanly directed glory is to be avoided, as well as humanly or divinely directed shame.

Paul’s language about the man being the head of the woman has often been used as part of an argument which limits the ministries in which women are allowed to engage.

It is remarkable, however, that this passage makes no distinction between the ministries in which men and women may engage.

Paul distinguishes not between their roles (both men and women are free to pray and prophesy), but between the proper attire expected for either of them to engage in those activities.

Thanks in part to the influence of those passages, traditions are frequently looked down upon in many evangelical circles.

Three out of the five times that Paul refers to traditions, however, he does so with very positive connotations (here and in 2 Thess.

2:15; 3:6).

Traditions, when they do not undermine the teaching of God’s word but preserve valid interpretations and/or applications of it, are of great value to the church

INteresting Thought - makes sense of shaving the head (you’d look like a man)

Paul’s specific and contextual concerns clearly motivate the whole passage: he uses the word [“head”] precisely because his concern is with the way in which the [head] must be attired in worship.

He follows the assertion of woman’s secondary place in the order of creation (vs.

8f.) not with a command for her to be subordinate, but with an insistence that her correct attire is a sign of her [authority] to pray and prophesy.

Paul’s purpose seems to be the establishment of “proper” distinction between men and women rather than with male superiority or authority.

The practical issue of attire is uppermost in his mind.

He points out that it would be absurd to think that the relationship between Christ and God and/or that which applies between the man and the woman is the measure of the other relationships.

Rather, although the language used for each relationship is the same, the precise nature of the relationship is determined “according to the occasion.”

Chrysostom himself may have assumed the male-female or husband-wife relationship would hold to a standard static pattern of submission, but his argument at least suggests that the use of headship language does not predetermine the nature of the relationship that might be described by that language.30

Although Paul begins with the men and mentions them again in vv.

7a, 14, it seems that the issue of the man’s covering (or lack of one) is raised as a foil to clarify how the issue relates to women.

The way it relates is by contrast: Whatever is appropriate for the man would be inappropriate for the woman—and vice versa.

This strict antithetical relationship seems to suggest that “[c]lear gender boundaries is the point.”

The question is still raised as to why Paul speaks of heads covered or uncovered only during prayer and prophecy, rather than when in public or in worship.

It may be that Paul thinks of prayer and prophecy as central aspects of Christian worship and therefore means to distinguish the appearance of men and women in that act.

It may also be that for Paul participation in worship may be summarized as “praying or prophesying” (that is, to engage in speaking to either God [in prayer] or those gathered [in prophecy]) and that by “to pray or to prophesy” he means the same as we would by speaking of those who “worship God in church on Sunday.”

On the other hand, in Roman worship it was only the person offering a sacrifice that would cover their head.

In this case it seems that Paul thinks that it is most important to guard some gender distinction in the public act of leading in worship (see the further discussion in the comments on v. 5).

For the man to worship in a manner that did not reflect his proper distinct identity as a male by leaving his head uncovered would bring shame on his own head (and thereby bring shame on Christ/God).

Issue of Appropriateness

Although more and more women may well have begun to appear in public without having their head covered by the stola, palla, or other covering, and it was becoming more and more acceptable, it seems that any public behavior, and especially attire (or lack thereof), by married women that served to invite the attention of men was perceived to be scandalous.56

Paul does not seem to require women to have their head covered if they are simply attending the meeting, but he does require them to have their head covered if they are going to draw attention to themselves by leading in some way (praying or prophesying) in the public meeting.

In these cases a woman might be expected simply to pull her stola or palla over her head before speaking up.

Some women may well keep their heads covered whenever they are in public, but others could at least be expected to take this simple step in the interests of propriety.

Thus by passing on a tradition that entailed maintaining the traditional antithetical gender distinction in the public display or covering of the head, Paul would both provide the minimal gender distinction that would be expected in any worship context and also avoid any suggestion that Christian women were promoting the sexual looseness of the “new Roman women” who were known for their disregard of the traditional marks of female modesty and purity.

v7

Paul’s ultimate point seems to be that nothing should happen in worship that would detract from God’s glory, including behavior that would draw attention to the glory of man.

Hooker points out that the woman’s head should be covered “not because she is in the presence of man, but because she is in the presence of God and his angels—and in their presence the glory of man must be hidden.”

v10

The woman’s head is not one over which others have authority.

God has granted her authority to pray and prophesy.

She exercises that authority in a dignified way by respecting both herself and the rest of the congregation through the avoidance of provocative attire or any dress or behavior which would bring shame on herself, others, or God, in a context where all eyes and every heart should be focused on God’s glory in the midst of his holy people.

1 cor 14...

Most solutions to the perceived tension between these verses and Paul’s position in chapter 11 have been based on understanding the silence or lack of speaking to entail refraining from a particular type of speaking.

Indeed, the word translated remain silent was already used twice before in this chapter.

First, in v. 28, in reference to one with the gift of tongues remaining silent when no interpreter is available to translate the unknown tongue.

Then, in v. 30, in reference to a prophet who is to stop speaking if someone else receives a revelation.

The inclusion here of this discussion of the silence of women or wives is most likely explained by the fact that Paul had just finished discussing those two other situations that also called for silence on the part of certain participants in the church’s worship.

In neither of those other cases, of course, are those people expected to remain silent at all times.

Indeed, Paul is probably thinking of particular instances where different kinds of participants in the worship meeting should refrain from speaking.208

It may be, then, that having addressed two situations in which people needed to exercise restraint and hold their tongue, Paul went on to address a third such situation that was not directly related to the themes of tongues or prophecy but that did have to do with the related theme of maintaining decency, order, and peace in the worship service (vv.

33, 40).

Perhaps even more likely is the possibility that scholars have inadvertently assumed that the only speaking that took place in the context of the prophetic ministry was that of prophesying and weighing prophecies.

It is quite possible, even most likely, that the discourse had more components, such as opportunities to ask (nonevaluative) questions of prophets.

This was, in fact, the most common mode of engaging prophets in the Hellenistic world.

Boring contends that “Hellenistic prophecy could be the result of the spontaneous inspiration by the deity, but it was normally a response to inquiries in which human beings took the initiative and was subject to manipulation.”220

Furthermore, “[p]rophecy was generally directed to the needs and inquiries of individuals, revealing the will of the deity or future information concerning the personal lives of individuals.”

Perhaps some women were especially likely to treat their Christian prophets as they would other prophets in their world, by peppering them with questions such as “Will my child be a boy or a girl?” or “Should I employ this slave or that?”

They may also be asking questions that are not part of the weighing of the prophecies but that are motivated by a desire to understand the content of the prophecies or the way in which the prophetic ministry works.

“Though it is possible that, in the context, the inquiries to which Paul is referring are actively a part of the evaluation of prophecy, the text does not require or naturally suggest that interpretation.

Paul is not saying, ‘if they have something to contribute, they should tell their husbands later’ (when, of course, it might well be too late).

He is saying that if they wish to learn … about anything they should ask … their own husbands later.

Presumably the problem was that they were asking other people’s husbands (or other people) on the spot.”

Paul’s suggestion that the women ask their own husbands at home reflects that cultural context where a man could be expected to be better informed/educated than his wife and was understood to be the proper channel of information to the wife.

Here, at home contrasts with in the church at the end of the verse, highlighting the private rather than public venue for the questions, in keeping with much ancient Greek thinking about the place of women in society.

In modern Western societies neither of those conditions normally hold.

In many societies today women are no less prepared to ask appropriate questions than their husbands, and it is considered just as perfectly normal and appropriate for them to participate in public dialogues as it is for men.

There is no longer any shame or disgrace associated with such engagement; rather, it would be considered shameful for a woman to be restricted from open participation in public conversations.

The principles underlying Paul’s counsel, that women (and men) not act disgracefully in public, or in ways which reflect a lack of respect for the dignity of their spouses, may well call for a different set of concrete behaviors in our churches than would have been expected in first-century Corinth.

Good Summary

Whether Paul has in mind participation in the critique of other prophets and their messages or disruptive (and shameful) chatter or conversations during the gathering, his main point seems to be that the women should show respect for order and for others (especially their husbands) in the worship setting.

Just what that respect and order would look like would be indicated in part by the biblical principles Paul has in mind and in part by the social and marital context to which those principles are being applied.

Garland concludes that “Paul’s instructions are conditioned by the social realities of his age and a desire to prevent a serious breach in decorum” and that he “may fear that the Christian community would be ‘mistaken for one of the orgiastic, secret, oriental cults that undermined public order and decency.’

” In applying such a text to other contexts and cultures we must be aware of the extent to which Paul and other biblical authors are sensitive to the social norms of proper decorum in the places where they ministered.

As mentioned above, in the modern (or postmodern) West it would be more scandalous to prohibit women from speaking with men than it is to allow men and women to speak freely with each other as long as our own sense of propriety is not offended.

For a married man or woman to meet privately with a person of the opposite sex on a regular basis for prayer, study, and the like would be likely to raise questions.

A married person who spends significant time discussing issues in private with a person of the opposite sex other than their spouse might raise some concerns.

In some cultures and contexts one could still suggest that a wife should ask their questions of their own husbands at home (as was considered most appropriate in the Roman world) without blushing.

In much of the world today such a recommendation would only discredit the person making such a statement, given the fact that the husband is hardly more likely to understand the issues better than his wife.

Ciampa, R. E., & Rosner, B. S. (2010).

The First Letter to the Corinthians (pp.

729–730).

Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.